Skip to main content
Glama

Nalegalu MCP

by io.github.nalegaluorg

get_case

Read-only

Fetch one SAOS court judgment (metadata + bounded text excerpt).

    Use only with a saos_id returned by related_cases or
    search_case_by_signature. Long judgments
    are paged: when has_more is true, call again with offset=next_offset.
    If the response has ok=false with a fallback hint, SAOS is unavailable
    or rate-limited — fetch the returned saos_url yourself with your own
    web tools instead of retrying this tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
offsetNo
saos_idYes
max_charsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals essential behaviors: paging with has_more and offset=next_offset, bounded text excerpts, and fallback to fetching saos_url when ok=false. These details are not captured in annotations and meaningfully inform agent behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence carries essential operational detail (source restriction, paging, fallback). There is no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists to document return values, the description covers all necessary contextual nuances: ID provenance, pagination, excerpt bounds, and graceful handling of SAOS unavailability. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further assumptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add parameter meaning. It explains saos_id (must come from related_cases or search_case_by_signature) and offset (used for paging), but max_chars is not mentioned at all. This partial coverage is adequate but leaves a clear gap for one of the three parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Fetch one SAOS court judgment (metadata + bounded text excerpt)'. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'SAOS court judgment' are specific, and the bounded excerpt detail distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_article (articles) and search_case_by_signature (search results).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use only with a saos_id returned by related_cases or search_case_by_signature'. This narrows usage to a specific workflow. It also provides paging instructions and a fallback action when SAOS is unavailable, fully addressing when and how to use the tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Nalegalu MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search_law and get_article handle statutes, while related_cases, search_case_by_signature, get_case, and verify_quote handle case law, with health for diagnostics. No overlapping boundaries exist.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_article, get_case, search_law, search_case_by_signature, verify_quote), but related_cases and health deviate as noun phrases. The mix is minor and remains predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a legal research server, covering both statutory and case-law workflows without redundancy. Each tool earns its place.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full research lifecycle: searching and retrieving statutes, finding related cases, verifying citations, fetching case details, and validating quotes. No obvious gaps are present.

Resources